BAGHDAD April 9, 2008, 04:49 pm ET · An Iraqi judicial committee has dismissed terrorism-related allegations against Associated Press photographer Bilal Hussein and ordered him released nearly two years after he was detained by the U.S. military.

Hussein, 36, remained in custody Wednesday at Camp Cropper, a U.S. detention facility near Baghdad's airport.

A decision by a four-judge panel said Hussein's case falls under a new amnesty law. It ordered Iraqi courts to "cease legal proceedings" and ruled that Hussein should be "immediately" released unless other accusations are pending.

The ruling is dated Monday but AP's lawyers were not able to thoroughly review it until Wednesday. It was unclear, however, whether Hussein would still face further obstacles to release.

U.S. military authorities have said a U.N. Security Council mandate allows them to retain custody of a detainee they believe is a security risk even if an Iraqi judicial body has ordered that prisoner freed. The U.N. mandate is due to expire at the end of this year.

Also, the amnesty committee's ruling on Hussein may not cover a separate allegation that has been raised in connection with the case.

AP President Tom Curley hailed the committee's decision and demanded that the U.S. military "finally do the right thing" and free Hussein.

In response to a question from the AP, Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said it "will be up to officials in Iraq" on whether to release Hussein. The decision, he said, will be "based upon their assessment as to whether he remains a threat."

Under Iraq's 2-month-old amnesty law, a grant of amnesty effectively closes a case and does not assume guilt of the accused.

Hussein has been held by the U.S. military since being detained by Marines on April 12, 2006, in Ramadi, about 70 miles west of Baghdad. Throughout his incarceration, he has maintained he is innocent and was only doing the work of a professional news photographer in a war zone.

The amnesty committee's decision covers various allegations by the U.S. military against Hussein, including claims he was in possession of bomb-making material, conspired with insurgents to take photographs synchronized with an explosion and offered to secure a forged ID for a terrorist evading capture by the military.

The committee may still be reviewing a separate allegation that Hussein had contacts with the kidnappers of an Italian citizen, Salvatore Santoro, whose body was photographed by Hussein in December 2004 with two masked insurgents standing over Santoro with guns.

Hussein was one of three journalists who were stopped at gunpoint by insurgents and taken by them to see the propped-up body. None of the journalists witnessed his death, said Santiago Lyon, AP's director of photography. The AP wrote a story about the incident at the time.

The AP said a review of Hussein's work and contacts also found no evidence of any activities beyond the normal role of a news photographer. Hussein was a member of an AP team that won a Pulitzer Prize for photography in 2005, and his detention has drawn protests from rights groups and press freedom advocates such as the Committee to Protect Journalists.

"The Amnesty Committee took only a few days to determine what we have been saying for two years. Bilal Hussein must be freed immediately," said Curley, the AP's president.

"The U.S. military has said the Iraqi process should be allowed to work. It has, and the military must finally do the right thing by ending its detention of a journalist who did nothing more than his job. Bilal's imprisonment stands as a sad black mark on American values of justice and fairness," Curley added.

The U.S. military referred the case in December to an investigating judge, who reviewed the evidence and submitted his findings to the Central Criminal Court of Iraq to determine whether the case should go to trial.

In February, however, parliament approved a law providing amnesty to those held for insurgency-related offenses — including detainees such as Hussein who have never been convicted.

The committee from the Iraqi Federal Appeals Court ruled Monday that allegations against Hussein were covered by the Anti-Terrorist Law and were subject to the amnesty law.

The order was sent to the Iraqi public prosecutor, but it was unclear if it had been received.

A lawyer for the AP was provided a copy of the order, but Wednesday was a public holiday in Iraq and government offices were closed.

The amnesty committee — or any Iraqi institution — cannot force the U.S. military to release or turn over any of the estimated 23,000 detainees it holds in Iraq. But a provision in the amnesty law states that the Iraqi government "is committed to take the necessary measures to move the arrested people" from U.S. control.

"The detention of Bilal Hussein has been a terrible injustice, and we are relieved that his ordeal might finally come to an end after nearly two years behind bars," said Joel Simon, executive director of the Committee to Protect Journalists.

Sylvia Smith, president of the National Press Club in Washington, called the amnesty ruling "a long-overdue decision."

"The next step is to free him," she said.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89502879

ClevelandBronco

04-09-2008, 11:59 PM

U.S. military authorities have said a U.N. Security Council mandate allows them to retain custody of a detainee they believe is a security risk even if an Iraqi judicial body has ordered that prisoner freed. The U.N. mandate is due to expire at the end of this year.

Get back to me at the end of this year when the mandate expires, and I'll tell you why the UN and their expiration dates don't matter in the least to me.

Taco John

04-10-2008, 12:05 AM

Play with international fire, and get burnt by it. All we do is legitimize these world bodies when we go to war using their resolutions as backing, and then cite their mandates to justify what our own Constitution wont allow us to do.

patteeu

04-10-2008, 12:19 AM

Play with international fire, and get burnt by it. All we do is legitimize these world bodies when we go to war using their resolutions as backing, and then cite their mandates to justify what our own Constitution wont allow us to do.

What is it that makes you mistakenly believe that our own Constitution won't allow us to detain insurgents and their sympathizers in a foreign land where we are involved in a military action?

Logical

04-10-2008, 12:36 AM

What is it that makes you mistakenly believe that our own Constitution won't allow us to detain insurgents and their sympathizers in a foreign land where we are involved in a military action?If under our Constitution what was he charged with and I believe he is entitled to a fair and speedy trial. Unless we have proof he was an enemy combatant in which case he should be charged and held under the terms of the Geneva Accords. Seems like we have failed on all fronts.

patteeu

04-10-2008, 01:35 AM

If under our Constitution what was he charged with and I believe he is entitled to a fair and speedy trial. Unless we have proof he was an enemy combatant in which case he should be charged and held under the terms of the Geneva Accords. Seems like we have failed on all fronts.

He's not a common criminal picked up on the streets of Omaha. He's been detained in a combat zone for working with the enemy.

Taco John

04-10-2008, 03:25 AM

What is it that makes you mistakenly believe that our own Constitution won't allow us to detain insurgents and their sympathizers in a foreign land where we are involved in a military action?

Show me where in the Constitution our government is permitted to detain insurgents and their supposed sympathizers in a foriegn land without having to face due process. This man was set free by the soverign government in the land in which he was detained. What is it that makes you mistakenly believe that the Constitution gives us any jurisdiction in the legal matters of the lands that we imperialistically occupy?

Taco John

04-10-2008, 03:27 AM

He's not a common criminal picked up on the streets of Omaha. He's been detained in a combat zone for working with the enemy.

Then try him. We're not ****ing Nazis.

We're Americans.

We have a Constitution.

This man is an Iraqi citizen who has been granted freedom by his government. Show me where in the Constitution we have the right to detain him indefinitely without due process. It doesn't exist. Our founders never intended our government to do such things.

Taco John

04-10-2008, 03:54 AM

What am I doing? This is much simpler than asking you to find what's not there.

You are of the groundless belief that our government has the Constitutional authority to detain insurgents and their supposed sympathizers in a foriegn land without having to face due process.

So here's a simple question:
If what you say is true, then why is our government relying on UN mandates in order to make their case?

You don't have to answer the question (you won't anyway). But the simple answer is this: because our Constitution doesn't allow it, and so to subvert it, we have to reach into the mandates of the international body to get it accomplished.

Looks like you're not so principled yourself.

patteeu

04-10-2008, 10:19 AM

Show me where in the Constitution our government is permitted to detain insurgents and their supposed sympathizers in a foriegn land without having to face due process. This man was set free by the soverign government in the land in which he was detained. What is it that makes you mistakenly believe that the Constitution gives us any jurisdiction in the legal matters of the lands that we imperialistically occupy?

This isn't a legal matter, it's a matter of war. The constitution describes the Presidential power to command our military forces in the performance of their duties in Article II Section 2:

The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States

You've really gone off the deep end since you accepted Ron Paul as your savior.

patteeu

04-10-2008, 10:26 AM

Then try him. We're not ****ing Nazis.

We're Americans.

We have a Constitution.

This man is an Iraqi citizen who has been granted freedom by his government. Show me where in the Constitution we have the right to detain him indefinitely without due process. It doesn't exist. Our founders never intended our government to do such things.

For someone who was so sensitive about name-calling when I used terms like "traitor" and "isolationist", it sure seems hypocritical when you imply that we're acting like "nazis" and describe our administration's actions as "murderous" in the process of supporting the accusation that they are "war criminals".

Our founders not only knew very well that war meant detaining our enemies indefinitely when captured, but also killing them without due process as a matter of course. To believe otherwise demonstrates an absurd lack of understanding (willful or otherwise) of what warfare has meant since the beginning of time.

patteeu

04-10-2008, 10:30 AM

What am I doing? This is much simpler than asking you to find what's not there.

You are of the groundless belief that our government has the Constitutional authority to detain insurgents and their supposed sympathizers in a foriegn land without having to face due process.

So here's a simple question:
If what you say is true, then why is our government relying on UN mandates in order to make their case?

You don't have to answer the question (you won't anyway). But the simple answer is this: because our Constitution doesn't allow it, and so to subvert it, we have to reach into the mandates of the international body to get it accomplished.

Looks like you're not so principled yourself.

Nonsense. The reason they "rely" on UN mandates is simply public relations. It's called diplomacy.

vailpass

04-10-2008, 10:33 AM

This isn't a legal matter, it's a matter of war. The constitution describes the Presidential power to command our military forces in the performance of their duties in Article II Section 2:

You've really gone off the deep end since you accepted Ron Paul as your savior.

ROFL

This thread title needs to be changed to "School is in session, Professor Patteeu dealing out lessons"

Saggysack

04-10-2008, 10:35 AM

All this outrage about Bilal Hussein? :rolleyes:

How many photographer have bomb parts and AQ propaganda hiding in their house? Only the guilty ones.

Taco John

04-10-2008, 10:36 AM

This isn't a legal matter, it's a matter of war.

This might be the stupidest thing you've ever said in this forum. EVERYTHING is a legal matter. We operate under a Constitution. You cant just ignore it because you find it inconvenient. I take it back... Apparently you can.

For someone who was so sensitive about name-calling when I used terms like "traitor" and "isolationist", it sure seems hypocritical when you imply that we're acting like "nazis" and describe our administration's actions as "murderous" in the process of supporting the accusation that they are "war criminals".

So who are you to whine about it?

Our founders not only knew very well that war meant detaining our enemies indefinitely when captured, but also killing them without due process as a matter of course. To believe otherwise demonstrates an absurd lack of understanding (willful or otherwise) of what warfare has meant since the beginning of time.

Our founders didn't give our government the authority to hold anyone without due process -- they certainly didn't give our government the authority to unilaterally KILL those they have detained.

You've lost your mind

Taco John

04-10-2008, 10:40 AM

All this outrage about Bilal Hussein? :rolleyes:

It's not about him at all. He's a minor piece of this discussion, hardly worth mentioning. The US Military drawing authorizations from the UN that our own Constitution doesn't give is what the real issue is.

patteeu

04-10-2008, 10:49 AM

This might be the stupidest thing you've ever said in this forum. EVERYTHING is a legal matter. We operate under a Constitution. You cant just ignore it because you find it inconvenient. I take it back... Apparently you can.

Our rules for warfare are different than our rules for domestic law enforcement. I'm shocked that you seem to be unaware of this distinction.

So who are you to whine about it?

LMAO I'm simply pointing out your hypocrisy, you're the one who was whining about it.

Our founders didn't give our government the authority to hold anyone without due process -- they certainly didn't give our government the authority to unilaterally KILL those they have detained.

You've lost your mind

We've literally killed millions of people without due process during our various wars, including thousands during the war that was led by General (and founding father) George Washington (although this was admittedly done before our Constitution took effect). Was Washington our first murderous, nazi-like leader, in your opinion?

patteeu

04-10-2008, 10:50 AM

It's not about him at all. He's a minor piece of this discussion, hardly worth mentioning. The US Military drawing authorizations from the UN that our own Constitution doesn't give is what the real issue is.

That's not even *a* real issue, much less *the* real issue.

Taco John

04-10-2008, 11:07 AM

Our rules for warfare are different than our rules for domestic law enforcement. I'm shocked that you seem to be unaware of this distinction.

Again, we're using a UN mandate to justify our actions here. Your statements on what "our rules" allow us to do are ringing hollow. If our constitution allowed us to detain people like this, then why would our government need to hide behind a UN mandate in order to justify it?

We've literally killed millions of people without due process during our various wars, including thousands during the war that was led by General (and founding father) George Washington (although this was admittedly done before our Constitution took effect). Was Washington our first murderous, nazi-like leader, in your opinion?

Who did the government officially detain and then kill in our custody without any sort of due process? Millions of people? What are you talking about?

patteeu

04-10-2008, 11:30 AM

Again, we're using a UN mandate to justify our actions here. Your statements on what "our rules" allow us to do are ringing hollow. If our constitution allowed us to detain people like this, then why would our government need to hide behind a UN mandate in order to justify it?

We really don't need to continue to go around and around about this. Our constitution is the ultimate authority for our actions. We refer to the UN mandate for diplomatic reasons.

Who did the government officially detain and then kill in our custody without any sort of due process? Millions of people? What are you talking about?

We've detained people indefinitely in every major war we've fought. We've killed people without any due process in every major war we've fought. I didn't say anything about detaining and then killing people in our custody without due process nor is that what this case is about.

BucEyedPea

04-10-2008, 11:34 AM

We've detained people indefinitely in every major war we've fought. We've killed people without any due process in every major war we've fought. I didn't say anything about detaining and then killing people in our custody without due process nor is that what this case is about.

Those had congressional oversight which came with a declare. That's the missing point. Legal war changes everything. The other wars were done under UN as police actions.

patteeu

04-10-2008, 11:43 AM

Those had congressional oversight which came with a declare. That's the missing point. Legal war changes everything. The other wars were done under UN as police actions.

Not all of them. We detained people indefinitely and killed people in the first Gulf War, Panama, and Vietnam just to name a few. I understand that you don't like the form of the Congressional authorization of this war, but if that's the issue you want to argue then that's where your arguments should be focused. We can't have an argument about whether or not a particular action during wartime is authorized by the constitution if we can't stipulate, for the sake of argument, that a war exists.

And beyond that, we know that at least one founding father (Thomas Jefferson) believed that the constitution grants the President the independent authority to order the US military into lethal combat under some circumstances without a Congressional declaration of war (e.g. the conflict with the Barbary pirates).

BucEyedPea

04-10-2008, 11:56 AM

Not all of them. We detained people indefinitely and killed people in the first Gulf War, Panama, and Vietnam just to name a few. I understand that you don't like the form of the Congressional authorization of this war, but if that's the issue you want to argue then that's where your arguments should be focused.

Obviously you didn't read what I posted. I said the others were done under the UN: PGW, Vietnam as UN police actions. That's based on our treaty that we signed with the UN, and their charter and the subsequent UN Participation Act which lets a president act under that for police actions. One reason I don't feel we should be in the UN. It erodes sovereignty. I've linked for you several times to the Federalist Society as to why we don't declare war anymore under that. I don't believe Panama was justified either but I don't know much about the legals on it.

We can't have an argument about whether or not a particular action during wartime is authorized by the constitution if we can't stipulate, for the sake of argument, that a war exists.
You're changing the argument around. I'm talking about the ramifications under a legal "state of war" as opposed to just people killing one other.
It changes things legally. And there was congressional oversight in the cases where there were military tribunals under such a legal state.

BucEyedPea

04-10-2008, 12:01 PM

And beyond that, we know that at least one founding father (Thomas Jefferson) believed that the constitution grants the President the independent authority to order the US military into lethal combat under some circumstances without a Congressional declaration of war (e.g. the conflict with the Barbary pirates).
I never said the president hadn't any authority ever under the Constitution to use force in certain situations short of war. He does. One is repelling a sudden and unexpected attack. And Jefferson did consult with congress regarding the Barbary Pirates. The only other incident would be the Quasi War with France which also relied on congress iirc. TJ provided a line from the Constitution as well regarding Congress' role regarding captures.

Another incident frequently cited on behalf of a general presidential power to deploy American forces and commence hostilities involves Jefferson’s policy toward the Barbary states, which demanded protection money from governments whose ships sailed the Mediterranean. Immediately prior to Jefferson’s inauguration in 1801, Congress passed naval legislation that, among other things, provided for six frigates that "shall be officered and manned as the President of the United States may direct." It was to this instruction and authority that Jefferson appealed when he ordered American ships to the Mediterranean. In the event of a declaration of war on the United States by the Barbary powers, these ships were to "protect our commerce & chastise their insolence – by sinking, burning or destroying their ships & Vessels wherever you shall find them."

In late 1801, the pasha of Tripoli did declare war on the U.S. Jefferson sent a small force to the area to protect American ships and citizens against potential aggression, but insisted that he was "unauthorized by the Constitution, without the sanction of Congress, to go beyond the line of defense"; Congress alone could authorize "measures of offense also." Thus Jefferson told Congress: "I communicate [to you] all material information on this subject, that in the exercise of this important function confided by the Constitution to the Legislature exclusively their judgment may form itself on a knowledge and consideration of every circumstance of weight."

Jefferson consistently deferred to Congress in his dealings with the Barbary pirates. "Recent studies by the Justice Department and statements made during congressional debate," Fisher writes, "imply that Jefferson took military measures against the Barbary powers without seeking the approval or authority of Congress. In fact, in at least ten statutes, Congress explicitly authorized military action by Presidents Jefferson and Madison. Congress passed legislation in 1802 to authorize the President to equip armed vessels to protect commerce and seamen in the Atlantic, the Mediterranean, and adjoining seas. The statute authorized American ships to seize vessels belonging to the Bey of Tripoli, with the captured property distributed to those who brought the vessels into port. Additional legislation in 1804 gave explicit support for ‘warlike operations against the regency of Tripoli, or any other of the Barbary powers.’"

patteeu

04-10-2008, 12:05 PM

I never said the president hadn't any authority ever under the Constitution to use force in certain situations short of war. He does. One is repelling a sudden and unexpected attack. And Jefferson did consult with congress regarding the Barbary Pirates. The only other incident would be the Quasi War with France. And TJ provided a line from the Constitution as well regarding Congress' role in that.

Which all supports the obvious fact that the President is authorized to direct the military to detain people indefinitely and kill without due process as a part of military operations (as distinguished from domestic law enforcement).

BucEyedPea

04-10-2008, 12:06 PM

Here's the earlier one TJ put up:

Section 8— Powers delegated to Congress
1-17 Enumerated Powers

#11. To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning capture on land and water;

BucEyedPea

04-10-2008, 12:08 PM

Which all supports the obvious fact that the President is authorized to direct the military to detain people indefinitely and kill without due process as a part of military operations (as distinguished from domestic law enforcement).

I don't see it without congressional oversight ( which is what you're omitting) How?

patteeu

04-10-2008, 12:13 PM

I don't see it without congressional oversight ( which is what you're omitting) How?

We have congressional oversight. Congress authorized the war and they continue to exercise their oversight role although some may say they do a poor job of it. Congressional oversight doesn't mean Congress signing off on every single decision the President makes.

BucEyedPea

04-10-2008, 01:16 PM

We have congressional oversight. Congress authorized the war and they continue to exercise their oversight role although some may say they do a poor job of it. Congressional oversight doesn't mean Congress signing off on every single decision the President makes.

No they didn't. They transferred their authority to decide on using force to the executive branch, which they do not have authority to do, especially for a full out aggressive war, invasion and long occupation. It's supposed to be congresses decision...not "The Decider's." It's the nuance point that's missed in these arguments.

BucEyedPea

04-10-2008, 01:27 PM

This is what I'm talking about pat:
War Powers by a constitutional lawyer and libertarian ( strict construction) (http://www.lewrockwell.com/hornberger/hornberger71.html)

Second, the congressional resolution never declared war on Iraq. Instead, it effectively authorized the president to make that call himself. In other words, in what can be described only as one of the most cowardly decisions in U.S. history (congressional elections were coming up and the members of Congress were scared of being accused of being unpatriotic), the Congress, in effect, delegated to the president its power to declare war on Iraq. In other words, by their resolution congressmen said, “Mr. President, we don’t want to have to make the call. You do it for us. We want to come back to Washington. We want to be reelected.”

However, as the Supreme Court affirmed long ago, the Constitution does not permit one branch of government to delegate its powers to another branch. Thus, the congressional resolution authorizing the president to decide whether to invade Iraq was a nullity under the Constitution, leaving the president with the illegal dictatorial power to both declare and wage war against Iraq.

patteeu

04-10-2008, 04:27 PM

Obviously, I disagree with you and Jacob G. Hornberger. The Congress effectively declared war with their resolution and left it up to the President to determine whether or not he needed to take action.

If the Congress had used the form of declaration that you prefer (whatever that is), but our enemy immediately responded to the unambiguous declaration of war by satisfying each and every one of our demands, the President would not be required to follow through with military action. This discretion is no different than the discretion exercised by GWBush after Congress authorized the Iraq war.

You can type until you're blue in the fingers and your archaic arguments on this point, based on form rather than substance, will continue to be empty to me.

BucEyedPea

04-10-2008, 04:29 PM

If the Congress had used the form of declaration that you prefer (whatever that is), but
I said nothing about the form. In fact I posted a reference about congress having passed a statute that did the same under Jefferson.
What I said, and which you ignore, is the substance of the argument not the form...that they delegated their authority to decide to the executive branch.
Cabiche?

You can type until you're blue in the fingers and your archaic arguments on this point, based on form rather than substance, will continue to be empty to me.

Archaic now is it? I kinda figured for a liberal.

patteeu

04-10-2008, 04:39 PM

I said nothing about the form. In fact I posted a reference about congress having passed a statute that did the same under Jefferson.
What I said, and which you ignore, is the substance of the argument not the form...that they delegated their authority to decide to the executive branch.
Cabiche?

Archaic now is it? I kinda figured for a liberal.

Like I said, your argument is one of form over substance. I understand that you don't recognize that (much less admit it), but that's beside the point.

go bowe

04-10-2008, 05:57 PM

I said nothing about the form. In fact I posted a reference about congress having passed a statute that did the same under Jefferson.
What I said, and which you ignore, is the substance of the argument not the form...that they delegated their authority to decide to the executive branch.
Cabiche?

Archaic now is it? I kinda figured for a liberal.liberal? patteeu? PBJ PBJ PBJ

oh well, at least you're not a neocon anymore...

now, is that a promotion or a demotion?

penchief

04-10-2008, 06:00 PM

liberal? patteeu? PBJ PBJ PBJ

If Patteeu's a liberal......then I guess maybe I really am a communist.

Iowanian

04-10-2008, 06:07 PM

One thing I've heard from soldiers MANY times is they got tired of picking up the same assholes for planting roadside bombs and other crap. They take them to Iraqi jail, someone buys their freedom and 3 months later, same asshole kills 2 of their buddies.

Taco John

04-10-2008, 06:58 PM

One thing I've heard from soldiers MANY times is they got tired of picking up the same assholes for planting roadside bombs and other crap. They take them to Iraqi jail, someone buys their freedom and 3 months later, same asshole kills 2 of their buddies.

Here's an idea: GTFO and leave that shit hole for the Iraqis to deal with. Stop putting our soldiers in harms way for nothing.

Iowanian

04-10-2008, 10:25 PM

I'm ok with that....if the retreating troops can fill the country with plastic explosives...and the last one to leave turns the light out...but the switch is a detonator.

Taco John

04-10-2008, 10:47 PM

I'm ok with that....if the retreating troops can fill the country with plastic explosives...and the last one to leave turns the light out...but the switch is a detonator.

http://www.ccmep.org/usbombingwatch/iraq032403.jpg

BucEyedPea

04-10-2008, 11:00 PM

Like I said, your argument is one of form over substance. I understand that you don't recognize that (much less admit it), but that's beside the point.

No your argument is one of form and not of substance. I'm not arguing the external aspect of what was used, as I did in earlier discussions. I'm now arguing the substance of that resolution, whether it was written as a sonnet or a poem. That is the congress didn't even decide to use military force in it...they delegated their power to do that to the executive branch. That's not form by a long shot. That was the heart and effect of the matter. Not what form it was in. Form would be if they used a "declare statement" or a "resolution". I'm arguing the content of the resolution this time. Maybe you need to look up the word form?

What you're doing is cutting slack and reasoning away an outness to make it fit right in your mind. You need to put down the National Review.

BucEyedPea

04-10-2008, 11:02 PM

If Patteeu's a liberal......then I guess maybe I really am a communist.

Liberals take a looser construction pov for a living constitution. Often, they claim certain things are archaic to justify it as pat did here.

Iowanian

04-10-2008, 11:08 PM

Don't worry Taco....

When the US military leaves Iraq....there will be far, far more of those photos available than anything our people have done.

It will be a bloodbath after we leave. remember, its what you wanted.

Taco John

04-11-2008, 12:25 AM

You forgot to close your prayer by saying "Amen."

patteeu

04-11-2008, 07:29 AM

No your argument is one of form and not of substance. I'm not arguing the external aspect of what was used, as I did in earlier discussions. I'm now arguing the substance of that resolution, whether it was written as a sonnet or a poem. That is the congress didn't even decide to use military force in it...they delegated their power to do that to the executive branch. That's not form by a long shot. That was the heart and effect of the matter. Not what form it was in. Form would be if they used a "declare statement" or a "resolution". I'm arguing the content of the resolution this time. Maybe you need to look up the word form?

What you're doing is cutting slack and reasoning away an outness to make it fit right in your mind. You need to put down the National Review.

You're argument is entirely based on form and you continue to fail to understand the substance.

If a declare statement had been used and the exact same subsequent steps had occurred, you wouldn't have a problem with it. If a declare statement had been used and the subsequent steps had resulted in complete cooperation from Saddam negating the need for an invasion, you wouldn't have had a problem with the President using his discretion to stand down. IOW, as long as the form of a declare statement were used, you would be fine with the President exercising exactly the same discretion that he had under the AUMF.

BucEyedPea

04-11-2008, 07:40 AM

I'm familiar with those legal terms since I've used them to defend myself on a breach of contract in a private mediation—and won!
( I must say I've done pretty well against some lawyers in court on my own too. ) *polishing badge of honor*

This type of slow erosion was done by McKinley, then TR, then Wilson with the flood gates bursting under FDR. It's just rank partisanship to not see it resulting in denial.

Lawrence Tribe would be proud of you.

Radar Chief

04-11-2008, 07:41 AM

Don't worry Taco....

When the US military leaves Iraq....there will be far, far more of those photos available than anything our people have done.

It will be a bloodbath after we leave. remember, its what you wanted.

Eh. :shrug: It was all an inside job anyways. Right Teej?

Amnorix

04-11-2008, 07:47 AM

No they didn't. They transferred their authority to decide on using force to the executive branch, which they do not have authority to do, especially for a full out aggressive war, invasion and long occupation. It's supposed to be congresses decision...not "The Decider's." It's the nuance point that's missed in these arguments.

I will state from my own pov that there has been a steady and sad erosion of Congressional power in favor of Executive power for a very long time now.

The main reason for this is Congress' unwillingness to stand up for itself but rather a vast preference to "pass the buck" to the President, and then
shoot arrows at him for whatever they don't like. Rather pathetic really.

Note that I"m not limiting htis comment to the context of this debate only, but rather as a more general observation.

patteeu

04-11-2008, 07:53 AM

I'm familiar with those legal terms since I've used them to defend myself on a breach of contract in a private mediation—and won!
( I must say I've done pretty well against some lawyers in court on my own too. ) *polishing badge of honor*

This type of slow erosion was done by McKinley, then TR, then Wilson with the flood gates bursting under FDR. It's just rank partisanship to not see it resulting in denial.

Lawrence Tribe would be proud of you.

If this was a response to me, I don't know what you're talking about.

Radar Chief

04-11-2008, 08:19 AM

I will state from my own pov that there has been a steady and sad erosion of Congressional power in favor of Executive power for a very long time now.

The main reason for this is Congress' unwillingness to stand up for itself but rather a vast preference to "pass the buck" to the President, and then
shoot arrows at him for whatever they don't like. Rather pathetic really.

Note that I"m not limiting htis comment to the context of this debate only, but rather as a more general observation.

Path of least resistance. I don’t necessarily blame them for playing the game, particularly when they keep getting away with it.

go bowe

04-12-2008, 05:39 PM

One thing I've heard from soldiers MANY times is they got tired of picking up the same assholes for planting roadside bombs and other crap. They take them to Iraqi jail, someone buys their freedom and 3 months later, same asshole kills 2 of their buddies.why are they picking them up?

why not just shoot them if they are anywhere close to an ied?

in the old days, it wasn't uncommon for people to get shot for "resisting arrest"...

i would think that coming in contact with known terrorists/insurgents in any fashion should be considered a case of resisting arrest...

although there would be the possibility that some potential intelligence might be lost, i would think that if they didn't provide any useful intel on the first go around, they probably won't provide any the next time...

sounds like a clear case of resisting arrest to me...

(i wish it was this easy in the real world)

Logical

04-12-2008, 05:46 PM

why are they picking them up?

why not just shoot them if they are anywhere close to an ied?

in the old days, it wasn't uncommon for people to get shot for "resisting arrest"...

i would think that coming in contact with known terrorists/insurgents in any fashion should be considered a case of resisting arrest...

although there would be the possibility that some potential intelligence might be lost, i would think that if they didn't provide any useful intel on the first go around, they probably won't provide any the next time...

sounds like a clear case of resisting arrest to me...

(i wish it was this easy in the real world)

Actually I am wondering why it is not this easy, war zone right, setting up IED right, dead asshole check.

I am betting the ignorant asses in the White House have for some idiotic reason set up rules of engagement that prevent it.

go bowe

04-12-2008, 06:36 PM

Actually I am wondering why it is not this easy, war zone right, setting up IED right, dead asshole check.

I am betting the ignorant asses in the White House have for some idiotic reason set up rules of engagement that prevent it.i'm pretty sure that setting up an ied justifies the use of lethal force, under almost any roe...

if i'm not mistaken, iowanian's post was more about the guys who had already been detained once on suspicion of making ied's or the like, and after being released they would go back to their old habits...

i was suggesting that second timers should be shot "resisting arrest", so to speak...